8020

Source: Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals by Oliver Burkeman Where in your life or your work are you currently pursuing comfort, when what’s called for is a little discomfort? Are you holding yourself to, and judging yourself by, standards of productivity or performance that are impossible to meet? In what ways have you yet to accept the fact that you are who you are, not the person you think you ought to be? In which areas of life are you still holding back until you feel like you know what you’re doing? How would you spend your days differently if you didn’t care so much about seeing your actions reach fruition? Want more self-elicitation questions like these? Check out “Questions Worth Asking.” ...

Source: Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals by Oliver Burkeman Adopt a “fixed volume” approach to productivity Keep two todo lists, one unbounded and one limited to a certain number of items (max 10); you can’t add a task to the second list until you’ve completed a task Might also need an “On Hold” or “Waiting For” todo list Set predetermined boundaries for your daily work Focus on only one big project at a time Decide in advance what to “fail” at (“strategic underachievement”) Focus on what you’ve already completed, not just on what’s left to complete Consolidate your caring (pick your battles!) Embrace boring, single-purpose technology (like the Kindle) Seek out novelty in the mundane Be a “researcher” in relationships (be curious, on purpose) Cultivate instantaneous generosity (act on the impulse to be generous right away) Practice doing nothing

This code of conduct very much relates to Rapoport’s Rules, Adler’s advice, and Alan Jacobs’s “The Thinking Person’s Checklist.” SOURCE: T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 6th ed (Australia ; Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2009), 7–8. 1. The Fallibility Principle Each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question. ...

The following checklist, found on pages 155–56 of Alan Jacobs’s excellent book, How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds (affiliate link), is a worthy addition to “Rapoport’s Rules” and “Adler’s Advice” (mentioned in my previous post, “Help me come up with ‘rules for conversation’!”). Emphasis added in **bold**. When faced with provocation to respond to what someone has said, give it five minutes. Take a walk, or weed the garden, or chop some vegetables. Get your body involved: your body knows the rhythms to live by, and if your mind falls into your body’s rhythm, you’ll have a better chance of thinking. Value learning over debating. Don’t “talk for victory.” As best you can, online and off, avoid the people who fan flames. Remember that you don’t have to respond to what everyone else is responding to in order to signal your virtue and right-mindedness. If you do have to respond to what everyone else is responding to in order to signal your virtue and right-mindedness, or else lose your status in your community, then you should realize that it’s not a community but rather an Inner Ring. Gravitate as best you can, in every way you can, toward people who seem to value genuine community and can handle disagreement with equanimity. Seek out the best and fairest-minded of people whose views you disagree with. Listen to them for a time without responding. Whatever they say, think it over. Patiently, and as honestly as you can, assess your repugnances. Sometimes the “ick factor” is telling; sometimes it’s a distraction from what matters. Beware of metaphors and myths that do too much heavy cognitive lifting; notice what your “terministic screens“ [See pages 90–91] are directing your attention to-and what they’re directing your attention away from; look closely for hidden metaphors and beware the power of myth. Try to describe others’ positions in the language that they use, without indulging in in-other-wordsing. [See pg. 106: “We see it every day. Someone points at an argument—a blog post, say, or an op-ed column—and someone else replies, ‘In other words, you’re saying … ‘ And inevitably the argument, when put in other words, is revealed to be vacuous or wicked.] Be brave.

In my role as Managing Editor for AnglicanPastor.com, I’m realizing the need to develop some “rules for conversation.” We describe the tone that we’re after as “clarity and charity,” which is an excellent summary. However, to guide our blogposts and comments, I think we need something more detailed and concrete. With that in mind, “Rapoport’s Rules” and “Adler’s Advice” seem like excellent starting points. But, if you have any further suggestions, please let me know in the comments! ...

I’m reading Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s excellent book, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. In it (on pages 25–26), I came across “Rapoport’s Rules.” First formulated by mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport and discussed by Daniel Dennett (Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, 31–35), here they are: 1: You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” ...